Belmont Stakes Day Figures

[jimbo66]

Jerry,

Ultra Pop, who ran up the track yesterday at Saratoga, is another horse coming off a figure on Belmont Stakes day that doesn\'t necessarily fit with her other form.  

She ran a 13 or 14 the race before Belmont day and a similar figure in the race after Belmont day.  But on Belmont day, she got a 7, which made her playable yesterday (by me and also in the redboard room by whomever did the analysis).  Yesterday, looks like she ran to her other figures.  

maybe just coincidence, but it seems like it is very dangerous to bet any horses, keying in off figures run on that day.  Not sure if Ultra Pop ran before or after the 15 point change in track surface.

jimbo,

From a theoretical point of view, this is one reason I like to know about races that were broken out or when the day was extra complex for whatever reason. If I don\'t know that, I may bet fast figures from those suspect days with equal enthusiam to fast figures that are solid as a rock.

[jimbo66]

I discussed Ultra Pop with another T-Graph user before the race yesterday.  We both liked the horse off the big run on Belmont Stakes day.  Unfortunately, neither of us realized that figure was earned on Belmont day until AFTER the race, otherwise I would have factored it in.  That day has proven to be a problem, between the True North and a few others.

Jimbo,

It\'s an occupational hazard of not making your own figures. Only the figure makers (all of them) know which days/races were a problem and which were not.
The solution is for figure makers to highlight \"suspect\" days and races, but I believe there will be some resistance to that idea.  

Cross checking figures is a partial solution. If various sources disagree, it at least raises a red flag to investigate further.

I am discovering a brand new problem with that though. For lack of a better term, I\'ll call it information overload/paralysis. I sometimes actually have 5 sets of figures (usually just 2 or 3) and would form an entirely different opinion on what the various fair odds should be depending on whose figures I am looking at. When you add in some of my other subjective views on these matters, I go straight into a handicapping coma. That\'s obviously not a solution I would recommend.

By the way, did you see what Beyer did with Lava Man?

He made one of his figures a 105 (I believe he broke the race out from the rest of the day because it came up so fast). When the horse came back to win by 8 in his last and ran super fast, he went back and changed the other one to a 116.

 


 

[TGJB]

Jimbo-- glad you brought this up, I reviewed all the Belmont Day dirt races before they sealed and re-opened the track. Four of the six are definitely right. The two sprint stakes are slightly more likely right than wrong, but there is still a question-- I\'m going to look at them again in a couple of weeks when we get one more start on some of these.

I did not like Ultra Pop at all-- I had a pretty good argument with Alan about him. I didn\'t like the really high bounce one bit, and didn\'t think it was because of the distance. I boxed 1-4 in the race, didn\'t hit either.

Michael-- I haven\'t seen the work yet, but according to Grening today on TV, they sealed the track for the last two races yesterday. It got slower, and in general that appears to be what happens when they do that.

I\'m attaching the race Ultra Pop came out of 6/11. It was the last race of the day, the one I took off 15 points from. Looks pretty good so far-- think about how it would look if you added, making the assumption that without weather changes the track doesn\'t change speed-- like only one figure maker does.

[Michael D.]

 not sure how you can say the #\'s for the 13th look good so far. wamp cut back to 5.5f. apples and oranges. ultra pop had perfect timing going into the race yesterday, and if he could run a fast sprint #, i don\'t see why he couldn\'t do it yesterday. i don\'t buy the bounce crap. always seems to be the excuse for a bad figure. somebody else says his belmont day # was \"20\", which could be too slow, but i really don\'t think he ran a \"7.5\" going 7f. i will watch him in the future though. some of the others ran back in the same race, and it looks like you tied it to the belmont stakes day race, of course it\'s going to look good. don\'t want to be too critical, i have had some good success using your product this year, and i know many others have as well, but i think you went too far in making variant changes on belmont day.

[TGJB]

Michael-- are you saying you think Ulta Pop ran equally well on 6/11 when he won, and the time after, when he got beat 18 1/2? And do you really believe that every time a horse runs 7f he figures to run the same figure?

As for tying later races to the 6/11 race-- the horses in those later races came out of LOTS of different races, not just the 13th on 6/11. Looks to me like there was only one race that more than one horse ran back in (7/4).

[Michael D.]

\"do you really believe that every time a horse runs 7f he figures to run the same figure\". yes, i believe that every time a horse runs 7f he has to get the exact same figure. LOL. jerry, what in god\'s name caused you to type that in. some horses run well at 5.5f, but can\'t get 7f. i don\'t want those #\'s tied together. some horses run well at 7f, but can\'t get 9f. i don\'t want those #\'s tied together. i just want to know how fast they ran......

and jerry, what does the # of beaten lengths have to do with UP\'s figures? please tell me you don\'t give a horse a better figure because he won, and a worse figure because he lost by 18 lengths. again, just how fast they ran is good enough for me.

and jerry remember, you guys used UP yesterday off that fig.

[TGJB]

Michael, do me a favor and read my post again, and the one of yours that preceded it. You put a lot of words in my mouth, and ascribed figure making practices to me that have nothing to do with what I said or do. And as I said earlier, Alan and I had a disagreement about whether Ultra Pop would run back to the figure.

TGJB,

Please feel free to delete this if it crosses the line.  I do think it\'s a suggestion you should at least consider though.

This is a general commentary.  

The race in question was obviously different from the rest of the day. Everyone I know broke it out. It seems obvious to me that when a single race stands alone (as in this case) there\'s going to be some disagreement and concern about the quality of the figure. That goes quadruple if it\'s a lower quality race where the horse\'s figures are generally more volatile or a race where many horses might have moved forward or backwards. It\'s tough to project a figure like that off one race.      

IMHO, the best way to serve customers is to make it clear to them that the figure is suspect - pending subsequent performaces that \"might\" shed further light on the issue. IMHO, the best way to do that is by \"bolding\" the type for the figure or doing something similar so it is easy to recognize \"beforehand\".

Absent that, at least Jerry is willing to discuss this issue with his customers in this forum prior to races. Personally, I think it\'s in the best interests of the more sophisticated users of the product (like a few on this board) to know about all figures like that ASAP regardless if they ultimately prove to be right or wrong. IMHO, the sophisticated players understand some of the complexities of the process and would rather be as informed as soon as possible.

[TGJB]

CH-- if you have followed all the discussions on this site (or if you do a search for any figure making posts) you will know that in effect I break every race out-- I view surrounding races as just pieces of information.

The race in question is not \"suspect\" more than any other, it was just done at a much different variant than the rest of the day, which included some variations within a range-- and two of which in fact are more \"suspect\", which is why I\'m going to review them again. When something is really suspect, meaning there was no way to come up with a scenario that has at least a probability of being close (within a point, if I had to define close), I leave a box, not a figure. When there is a probability but there is still a reasonable question, I do the race, but review. But all figures are subjective, and therefore \"suspect\" to some degree.

TGJB,

\"CH-- if you have followed all the discussions on this site (or if you do a search for any figure making posts) you will know that in effect I break every race out-- I view surrounding races as just pieces of information.\"

I understand. \"Break out\" was the wrong term to use.

\"The race in question is not \"suspect\" more than any other, it was just done at a much different variant than the rest of the day,\"

\"When there is a probability but there is still a reasonable question, I do the race, but review. \"

What I meant was that it would helpful for me (and perhaps others) if all races like the ones above were highlighted even if the confidence level is fairly high. I always feel more confident in figures that fit perfectly with the rest of the day than I do about ones that seem to make sense where a very different variant was used. It probably relates to issues that are off topic, but nonetheless I would think the confidence level has to be a tad higher on those really clean days. At a minimum, if you have the figure under review in your own mind, a notation would be helpful.